Personnel substitution - temporary inheritance of authorization

Hello all,
I'm in need of finding a solution for HR substitution, meaning that the person substituting for a colleague will temporarily inherit his/her authorization.
The required functionality should be an automated process/program where managers can organize their own substitutions.
For now I have tested this functionality and it only seems to work when adding relation A008 for the substitute to the respective role. But this may have undesired implications regarding payroll because of the changed IT0001...
I would like to know if there's a tried and 'standard' procedure/solution for this.
The client is using CUA with structural authorization and context solution.
If you need any additional info, let me know!
points are rewarded!
Thanks!

thanks for your reply, David.
In fact, the situation as desired by the client is as follows : all line managers and HR managers should be able to organize their own substitutes through the portal.
The easiest way to go about doing so would be to add a (time-delimited) relationship between the substitute and the position to be substituted. As far as the 'inheritance' of authorization is concerned, this is working. I'm stil not completely sure what the impact is regarding payroll or anything else.
the structural authorizations are inherited through the top org. unit a user belongs to.
Ideally, after the substitution the substitute should be authorized to access both org. units : his own and the one he's substituting.
I hope to have clarified my situation a litlle...

Similar Messages

Personnel substitution - temporary inheritance of authorization (D.O.A.)

Hello all,
I'm in need of finding a solution for HR substitution, meaning that the person substituting for a colleague will temporarily inherit his/her authorization.
The required functionality should be an automated process/program where managers can organize their own substitutions.
For now I have tested this functionality and it only seems to work when adding relation A008 for the substitute to the respective role. But this may have undesired implications regarding payroll because of the changed IT0001...
I would like to know if there's a tried and 'standard' procedure/solution for this.
The client is using CUA with structural authorization and context solution.
If you need any additional info, let me know!
points are rewarded!
Thanks!
In addition to the above, I would like to ask whether the relation between the role and the position is the best way to go or perhaps I should consider using the job object (C) to avoid the before-mentioned implications with IT0001.
Any help would be greatly appreciated....
<b>reply by David Coleman</b>:
I assume you are concerned with Structural authorisations here. The "evaluation" is controlled by an evaluation path. I think that you can use another releationship (B205 springs to mind for some reason) for the work flow substitution and also add it into the eval path. Hence all workflows and auths would be "inherited" by the subsitute.
sorry for vague details
thanks for your reply, David.
In fact, the situation as desired by the client is as follows : all line managers and HR managers should be able to organize their own substitutes through the portal.
The easiest way to go about doing so would be to add a (time-delimited) relationship between the substitute and the position to be substituted. As far as the 'inheritance' of authorization is concerned, this is working. I'm stil not completely sure what the impact is regarding payroll or anything else.
the structural authorizations are inherited through the top org. unit a user belongs to.
Ideally, after the substitution the substitute should be authorized to access both org. units : his own and the one he's substituting.
I hope to have clarified my situation a litlle...
p.s.: I initially posted this in the HCM forum only realizing that this place is more suited for these type of questions. That's also the reasopn why I pasted all posts into this one. If this is not according to the COC, kindly let me know.

thanks for your reply, David.
In fact, the situation as desired by the client is as follows : all line managers and HR managers should be able to organize their own substitutes through the portal.
The easiest way to go about doing so would be to add a (time-delimited) relationship between the substitute and the position to be substituted. As far as the 'inheritance' of authorization is concerned, this is working. I'm stil not completely sure what the impact is regarding payroll or anything else.
the structural authorizations are inherited through the top org. unit a user belongs to.
Ideally, after the substitution the substitute should be authorized to access both org. units : his own and the one he's substituting.
I hope to have clarified my situation a litlle...

PT60 the field Personnel Area( PERSA ) of the authorization object P_ORGIN

Hi,
When running transaction PT60 the field Personnel Area( PERSA ) of the authorization object P_ORGIN is not checked.
I have run SU24 ,the objects are there with chech indicator of authorization object = "CHECK".
What can I do about it ? Is there any note to fix this ?
thanks!
Olivia Yang

Hi,
In object P_ORGIN what you need to check for authorisation is it on Personnel area or PSA.Actually we have org.key for authorisation which is define in P_ORGIN.If you can define org. key as PA/PSA/EG/ESG you can check the authorisation for specific users.
Regards,
Snita

SAP Personnel Development - Qualification Inheritance

In implementing our Personnel Development module, we have qualifications related to tasks. Tasks are related to an org unit, job, or position. When running report for qualification gaps, the report generated did not consider the qualification inheritance from Task to org unit, and position thus causing a big qualification deficit. What is needed to allow the deficit report to take into consideration qualifications related to tasks which are related to positions or org units...
Thanks for your assistance
chen

Hi,
what relationship (i.e. subtype) have you created between Q and T? Same question for T to O ans S?
I've used the same set-up (Q to T and T to S or O) before and had no issues with the 'deficit' - report? I'm 100% sure that we didn't change the report so it seems it must be something else.
Wilfred.

Authorization Check in Personnel Cost Planning (PA-CP)

Dear Experts,
We are facing an issue where there is no authorization checking when performing the Cost Planning functions. The requirement here is to put in an authorization check such that when:
1) collecting cost plan data for employees (tcode: PHCPDCEM), it will check against HR Master Data (e.g. P_ORGIN, P_ORGINCON) or HR Clusters (P_PCLX) (e.g. check which Personnel Area the user has authorization for). Currently, the Data Record Log does not have this checking.
2) Creating, generating, viewing and maintenance of cost plan (e.g. tcode: PHCPADMN), it should have the same checking as above
We are using SAP ECC 6.0.
Has anyone encounter the same issue and has a resolution for it (configuration or user exit?)? I see that there is a user exit HRHCP00_RESP_OBJECTS available, but it does not provide the authorization check even when it returns "NO_AUTHORITY".
Thanks very much in advance.
Alex

Hi Alex,
I am not very sure about Personnel Cost Planning,
But an approach I have used in the past when exploring a module about which there is limited documentation or SAP standard model roles is to
1) Switch on Trace using ST01.
2) Carry out a series of transcations using a user id which has a lot of authorizations or SAP_ALL.
3) Anlayse the trace document and identify all the authorization object.
4) BUild a new role with the auth objects and assign to test user id.
5) test and confirm that the authorizations are not too many or too less.
A time consuming but thorough approach.
hope this helps.

Authorization inheritance in cFolders

Hi !
Is there any way of over-riding the inheritence of authorization in cFolders? In cFolders a lower level element automatically inherits the authorization matrix of the higher level element and I want to prevent this from happening.
Lets say for example I have a folder A with 15 documents inside it. A user User 1 has got read authorization in folder A and so by default he has read authorization in all the documents in the folder. Now suppose I want to restrict his view to only 8 documents out of 15 I'll have to manually set the authorization to none in the rest of the documents. However if a new document gets created in thefolder then the default authorization for that document is read for user 1 as it inherits the authorization matrix of folder A. I want to prevent it from happening.
Any ideas?
Regards,
Debaranjan Hazarika.

Hi Lashan,
1- the definition of auth. object CXF_APPL is following:
This authorization object is for the cFolders application. If a user has authorization for this authorization object, he or she can make administrative settings.
You can use the following field values (for APPL_AREA):
- 'Network_Definition': Setting up the network, for example, absolute URL or FTP server settings
- 'Content_Definition': Setting up cFolders content, for example, adding generic objects; choosing scenarios to use
- 'Layout_Definition': Setting up the cFolders layout, for example, style sheets
The permitted activites are: 02 Change and 03 Display.
2- The definition of CFX_USER is as follows:
This authorization object is for the cFolders application. This authorization object must be assigned to the user who wants to use cFolders.
The user needs the following field value to use cFolders:
USER_TYPE = User (no other values exist)
I hope this answers your question.
Regards,
Silvia

HCM Forms&Process :Authorization error while opening work item in the UWL

Hi,
The process has been started successfully and the work item was appeared in the UWL of MSS.
But when I try to open the work item , I got the following errors:
"User XXXX doesnot have authorization on pernr 8000123"
"You are not authorized to process this process"
When I checked, the User XXXX has the required roles for authorization such as SAP_ASR_MANAGER and SAP_ASR_EMPLOYEE and the authorization object P_ASRCONT has been assigned to it as well.
Still why these errors are coming?
Does anybody know about it?
Thanks & regards,
Lek

Hi,
I have had exactly the same error. Make sure you have read the help.sap.com documentation carefully:
http://help.sap.com/erp2005_ehp_04/helpdata/EN/43/3d8f8118391bcbe10000000a1553f7/frameset.htm. The minimum requirement is access to one infotype (it does not matter whether there is data in the infotype and it does not matter which infotype you choose) via CHECK_MIN_PERNR_AUTHORIZATION of BAdI HRPAD00AUTH_CHECK. More specifically, we solved it be providing access to infotype 0002 to all employees.
Furthermore, check what level of authorizations you have set in the config for the activities.
IMG->Personnel Management->HR Administrative Services->Authorizations->Define Authorization Method for Activities (All Processes) or Define Authorization Methods for Activities (for Each Process Group).
This should help you solve your problem.

How to use authorization object P_PERNR ?

Hi, Gurus~
In our system, there is a user whose User ID is "00041", and she can modify her own 0008, we want to control it so that she can only display her own 0008, but process 0008 for all other employees
So, i use the authorization object P_PERNR to do this, i set the fields value like this (totally copy from the SAP help for P_PERNR....):
Authorization level: W,S,D,E
Infotype: 0008
Interpretation of assignment personnel number: E
Subtype: *
and then, i maintain her master data 0105's subtype 0001-system user name as 00041
i think she shouldn't maintain her own 0008 now ,but she still can maintain it
i want to know why and how to solve it, did i do it in the right way?
Thank you in advance!

P_PERNR   HR: Master Data - Personnel Number Check
You use the HR: Master Data - Personnel Number Check authorization object if you want to assign users different authorizations for accessing their own personnel number. If this check is active and the user is assigned a personnel number in the system, it can directly override all other checks with the exception of the test procedures.
The following values are possible for the PSIGN field:
I   =          Authorization for personnel number assigned, that is for own personnel number
E =          Authorization for all personnel numbers excluding own personnel number
You can assign a user a personnel number using infotype 0105, subtype 0001 (in earlier releases using the V_T513A view).
This check does not take place if the user has not been assigned a personnel number, or if the user accesses a personnel number other than his or her own. In other words, this check is completely irrelevant for personnel numbers that are not assigned to the user.
Example of Personnel Number Check P_PERNR
The authorization checks for P_ORGIN and P_PERNR are activated in the system. In addition, there are user assignments for some personnel numbers.
The user in our example is assigned a personnel number and is administrator responsible for the Basic Pay infotype (0008) of a personnel area (that is, the user has the corresponding P_ORGIN authorization). The employee should also be able to display his or her own data but not change his or her basic pay, irrespective of the personnel area for which the employee is responsible. The corresponding authorizations for the P_PERNR authorization object must be set up as follows: AUTHC = R, M
PSIGN = I
INFTY = *
SUBTY = * AUTHC = W, S, D, E
PSIGN = E
INFTY = 0008
SUBTY = *
In our example, the user is an administrator responsible for the basic pay (infotype 0008) of a personnel area (since the administrator has the corresponding HR: Master Data authorization). The employee should also be able to display his or her own data at all times but not change his or her basic pay, irrespective of the personnel area for which the employee is responsible. You need to set up the appropriate authorizations for the HR: Personnel Number Check object as shown in this example.
The first authorization grants the employee read authorization for all infotypes that are stored under the employee's personnel number. The second authorization denies write access to all data records of infotype 0008 for the employee's own personnel number in case the administrator is responsible at some point in the future for the personnel area to which he or she belongs.
As the following examples illustrate, inconsistent authorizations can be granted.
Example 1:
AUTHC = *
PSIGN = I
INFTY = 0014
SUBTY = M* AUTHC = W, S, D, E
PSIGN = E
INFTY = 0014
SUBTY = *
The first authorization grants the employee read authorization (AUTHC = R) for the Recurrent Payments/Deductions infotype (0014), subtype M120, which allows the employee to access the data stored under his or her personnel number. In this case, the second authorization is irrelevant.
The first authorization grants the employee write authorization (AUTHC = W) for the Recurrent Payments/Deductions infotype (0014), subtype B030, which denies the employee access to the data stored under his or her personnel number. In this case, the first authorization is irrelevant.
The first authorization grants the employee write authorization for the Recurrent Payments/Deductions infotype (0014), subtype M120, the second authorization denies the employee this authorization. The desired system response is unclear from this example. According to the documentation, the system response is undefined in such situations. In reality, the authorization check always denies authorization in unclear situations, that is E is stronger than I and therefore the authorization is not granted.
Example 2:
AUTHC = *
PSIGN = *
INFTY = *
SUBTY = *
This type of authorization is required by superusers with unlimited access, for example. The above authorization is appropriate if an employee wants to access an infotype. However, since PSIGN = * and * can be substituted for any value, PSIGN and E can also be interpreted as I. This can also lead to an undefined situation. In earlier releases, the authorization was denied on the basis of the rule E is stronger than I. This meant that superusers with assigned personnel numbers were not able to access their own personnel number. The programs have since been changed and now * is interpreted as I and is stronger than E. In other words, * is stronger than E and E is stronger than I, whereby * is interpreted as I.
As already indicated in Example 1, the combination of different authorizations can produce a complicated result. We therefore recommend that you avoid combinations where P_PERNR authorizations can be interpreted differently for the same combination of AUTHC(Authorization Level), INFTY(Infotype) and SUBTY (Subtype).
Misunderstandings arising from the complex situations described above are not the most frequent causes of customer inquiries, however. The most frequent cause is the incorrect assumption that authorizations by personnel number affect authorizations for non-assigned personnel numbers. This is not the case at all.
If you use authorizations by personnel number, you should always first set up all non-personnel number-related authorizations. As soon as you have done this, you should create different access authorizations for the personnel numbers that are assigned to users using appropriate P_PERNR authorizations. This is always possible since the P_PERNR authorizations override all other authorizations directly (except Test Procedures).
P_PERNR authorization checks cannot bypass test procedures directly. For instance, a test procedure is only carried out on the Recurring Payments/Deductions infotype (0014) if a corresponding P_PERNR authorization (with PSIGN = I) exists. If an appropriate authorization for the corresponding subtype of the infotype 0130 exists, it can be used effectively to carry out the test procedures.

ABAP: Modify PA infotype without authorization check

Hello everyone,
Short version:
I know two FM that can modify PA infotype data: HR_MAINTAIN_MASTERDATA and HR_INFOTYPE_OPERATION. However, neither of those includes a parameter that allows using them without them automatically checking authorizations (like you can do with, say, FM RH_INSERT_INFTY which has parameter AUTHY to disable authorization checks but only works with OM infotypes, but not PA infotypes).
Does anybody know a solution?
Long version:
We want the travel department to be able to maintain infotype 17, and only infotype 17. In fact, there are only two fields there that need to be maintained in our company. That department should not have access to any other infotypes, and we are not going to give them PA30. On the other hand, they shall be able to do so for any employee, no matter from which personnel area, subarea, and organizational unit.
So I have created a small program with a mask specifically tailored to their needs. But we do not want to give them any PA authorizations. Giving them P_ORGIN to infotype 17 might not be a big deal, but then we would also need to give them structural authorization to all companies (= org units and personnel areas). Unlimited structural authorization is a big deal, and I would rather avoid granting that to someone who is not supposed to be doing anything but this tiny bit in HR. The only authorization that I would like to see in place is transaction authorization for my program. Anyone who has that should be allowed to maintain these IT 17 fields for any employee, but nothing else.
The problem is that upon writing the data, FM HR_INFOTYPE_OPERATION auto-checks the authorization required for maintaining the infotype, including structural authorization, and so does FM HR_MAINTAIN_MASTERDATA, as far as I understand. Is there an alternative I could go for?

ECM stands for Employee Compensation management and is one of the SAP HR module.
But I doubt you can use ECM specific function module to modify/insert infotype 17 values as below are the main infotypes for ECM module.
Employee Infotype
Description
0758
Compensation Program
0759
Compensation Process
0760
Compensation Eligibility Override
0761
LTI Granting
0762
LTI Exercising
0763
LTI Participant Data

Hr Authorization For End User

Dear Experts,
The scenario,in PA30 and also in PA40 HR end user should not have access to edit his own data but he/she can able to view his own data and he should have access to edit,create,copy for other employees. Kindly let me know authorization object for the same.
Regards,
Deepan
Message was edited by: Sikindar A

Hello
P_PERNR: will prevent or let a user to maintain/see its own data cfr: P_PERNR (HR: Master Data ? Personnel Number Check) (SAP Library - Authorizations for Human Resources)
then depending if you use Contextual Authorization or not
P_ORGIN or P_ORGINCON lets a user to maintain/display the employees' master data.
Cfr:
P_ORGIN (HR : données de base) - Autorisations pour HR (Gestion des Ressources Humaines) - SAP Library
https://help.sap.com/saphelp_erp60_sp/helpdata/en/4c/197c8fad6671459b9dde3e915336b8/content.htm
regards
Hadrien

BOM authorization controls -reg

Friends ,
we use only BOM with usage 1 -production BOM , we dont want to maintain many BOMs like engineering bom ,design bom ,production bom like that seperately.
in this context we require some authorization control to control the users for BOM changes for
BOM during new product developmental stage
BOM once mass production kicks
we want certain people only authorised to create or change BOM at new product development stage (precisely at R&D personnel )
once it goes to mass production we dont want the R&D personnel control on it we would like to authorize operations personnel to take owership of it
is this can be done ? which object i have to use to differentiate between BOM at new product stage and mass production stage
once it changes from new product stage to mass production stage some where we have to maintain this object and contro, through this
please help at the earliest
thanks
madhu kiran

Hi Madhu,
The authorization objects checked for BOM, Inform your basis personnel to use them to authorize as per your business need.
C_STUE_BER     CS BOM Authorizations
C_STUE_NOH     CS Authorization to process BOMs without a change number
C_STUE_WRK     CS BOM Plant (Plant Assignments)
C_AENR_BGR          CC Change Master - Authorization Group
C_AENR_ERW     CC Eng. Chg. Mgmt. Enhanced Authorization
C_AENR_RV1     CC Engineering change mgmt - revision level for materials
C_DRAD_OBJ     Create/Change/Display/Delete Object Link
C_TCLA_BKA     Authorization for Class Types
Hope the above answers your query.
Regards,
Vivek

Regar Authorization objects

Dear all,
Is there any Standared Z object for personnel area based.
the Requirement is we have to give the payslip authorization i.e the t code is PC00_M40_CEDT
client wants to give this as region wise. can u please tell for this if there is any answer.
Regards,
Bachi

You don't need to modify the Auth Object. It will work for your purpose as one of the standard authorization control in the object is Personnel Area.
Create several authorizations with different PERSA values (each PERSA corresponding to different Pers,. Area/ Region). Add your tcode to all roles. Assign the role to appropriate administrators per region.

Regarding z object for personnel area

Dear Experts,
What is the z-object for personnel area for giving the authorizations....can any one help me what is the T. code to find out z objects. Its very urgent.
Regards
Bachi.

Dear Bachi,
I have replied to this thread in the other one. Hope it will solve your issue.
Kind Regards,
Christine

Implementation-1

We are using SAP GUI 720 and Easy DMS 7.1.2.4: (Unicode), storing the documents in Content server.
Please help us to get the solution as ASAP.
1. See the below case. How to handle this?
u2022     Locate/Search the document in DMS folder with restricted access through ACL.
Case: Folder- (No Access)
          Sub folder-     (No Access)
                    1     Document authorization (Access)
                    2     No access
User want to see the folder strcuture to locate the individual document.
2.How to deactivate or control the inherited folder authorization when and where it is needed?
3. How to handle below requirement of Multiuser Checkout in shared mode and capturing changes, tracking versions?

Hi Sandy,
I'm sorry but I think that these general question on the implementation is maybe a bit to complex to handle it in this forum. From my point of view I would recommend you to get in contact with an experienced consulting organisation which will help you to setup your system according to your requirements.
Best regards,
Christoph

How can i find out the table hierarchy

Hi experts,
I have one doubt. how can i find out the table hierarchy in the particular schema.
Let me explain my requirement in detail.. In my Database i have nearly 250 table each table have it's own temporary table(for authorization purpose we are maintaining the temporary tables) for each day i have to clear the temporary table data.
All temporary table connected with each other. i mean all the table having foreign key relationship.. while i attempt the delete the data from the temporary table it showed ORA-02292: integrity constraint violated - child record found.
So can any one please tell how can i delete the child table record first and then parent record table record.
Thanks in advance
Arun

CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION get_child_tables (
ptable VARCHAR2,
powner VARCHAR2 DEFAULT 'SCOTT',
plevel NUMBER DEFAULT 10
RETURN stringarray
-- -- create this ON SQL*PLUS "CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE STRINGARRAY AS TABLE OF VARCHAR2(50);"
-- AUTHID CURRENT_USER
PIPELINED
AUTHOR DATE VERSION COMMENTS
======================================================================================
[email protected] 26-OCT-2009 1.0 Developed to ease developers effort to find Nth level of Referential integrity
======================================================================================
-- PURPOSE -> To find PARENT=> CHILD relational TABLE(S) in Oracle upto a depth max N Level.
--SYNTAX TO USE
SELECT * FROM TABLE( get_child_tables('DEPT','SCOTT',3)); Store this query in a file for your use
SELECT * FROM TABLE( get_child_tables('EMPLOYEE')); Store this query in a file for your use
-- RESULTS looks as below
--1 => DEPT
--2 => EMP
--2 => EMP2
--3 => EMP_CHILD
--3 => EMP2_CHILD
-- and so on
--This can be leveraged to use in any oracle database REGION 10g having and above.
--This FUNCTION gives formatted result of the Oracle 10g Hierarchical query result coded in the cursor
--to find MASTER => CHILD relational TABLE(S) upto a depth max 10 Level.
--The result of the PIPELINED function can be retrieved using Oracle new operator
--TABLE(array name) in SQL query.
--Due to the AUTHID CURRENT_USER compiler directive any user can use based on his/her access privileges on the database.
--GRANT EXECUTE ON SCOTT.get_child_tables TO PUBLIC;
--CREATE OR REPLACE PUBLIC SYNONYM get_child_tables FOR SCOTT.get_child_tables;
IS
atname stringarray := stringarray ();
-- create this ON SQL*PLUS CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE STRINGARRAY AS TABLE OF VARCHAR2(50);
vlevel NUMBER;
vtname VARCHAR2 (50);
nindex NUMBER := 0;
bprocessed BOOLEAN := FALSE;
CURSOR c1 (powner_in IN VARCHAR2, ptable_in VARCHAR2, plevel_in NUMBER)
IS
SELECT LEVEL, LPAD (' ', (LEVEL - 1) * 2, ' ') || pt AS "TNAME"
FROM (SELECT a.owner w1, a.table_name pt, a.constraint_name c1,
a.r_constraint_name r1, b.owner w2, b.table_name ct,
b.constraint_name c2, b.r_constraint_name r2
FROM all_constraints a, all_constraints b
WHERE a.constraint_name = b.r_constraint_name(+)
AND a.owner = b.owner(+)
AND a.owner =
UPPER (powner)
-- Change Owner here while testing
--AND A.r_constraint_name IS NULL
AND a.constraint_type IN ('P', 'R')) v1
START WITH pt =
UPPER
(ptable)
-- Change your master table here while testing the QUERY
CONNECT BY PRIOR ct = pt AND LEVEL <= plevel;
-- Change lavel here while testing
BEGIN
atname.EXTEND;
atname (1) := 'NOTHING';
OPEN c1 (powner, ptable, plevel);
LOOP
bprocessed := FALSE;
FETCH c1
INTO vlevel, vtname;
IF nindex > 1 AND atname (atname.LAST - 1) = vtname
THEN
--DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE('2 ==== vtname ' ||vtname || ' '|| atname.count|| ' '||atname.last || ' '||atname( atname.last-1));
bprocessed := TRUE;
END IF;
IF NOT bprocessed
THEN
nindex := nindex + 1;
atname.EXTEND;
atname (nindex) := vtname;
PIPE ROW (vlevel || ' => ' || vtname);
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line ( ' **** nindex - atname( nindex) '
|| nindex
|| ' - '
|| atname (nindex)
DLOG('ADDING ',vTname); A LOGGING ATONOMUS PROCEDURE FOR DEBUG PURPOSE
END IF;
EXIT WHEN c1%NOTFOUND;
END LOOP;
CLOSE c1;
FOR i IN 1 .. atname.COUNT
LOOP
DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE('atname (i) ' ||atname (i));
END LOOP;
RETURN;
EXCEPTION
WHEN no_data_needed
THEN -- THIS EXCEPTION HAS TO BE THERE TO GET THE FUCTION WORKABLE
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line (SQLERRM);
RETURN;
--SELECT * FROM TABLE( get_child_tables('TB_XOP_LETR_TEMPLATE','OPS$CMS',5));
END get_child_tables;
Edited by: user3066657 on Jul 21, 2011 8:42 AM
Edited by: user3066657 on Jul 21, 2011 11:26 AM

Personnel substitution - temporary inheritance of authorization

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for